Note how there was only the New Englanders fighting for independence at this stage, no other colonies revolted at this time and Canada remains part of the Commonwealth today. So it was not universal to the colonies, just the 13 states that went on to form the US. You can't universally blame George III for this as he was only a constitutional monarch, the politicians of the time operating in the difficult times that they were in were those who took the fiscal and militiary decisions, these would be your 'tyrants'. I think we can also claim a level of success in that the British monarch is head of still head of state in 16 countries. Only the monarchy of Denmark and the Netherlands can claim similar feats. Spain lost all of it's colonies through independence struggles whereas we peacefully held many, the big exceptions being India and the US.

You seem to be very proud of GB's success at conquering many parts of the world such that, at one time at least, the sun never set on British Empire. Those who have fought against British colonialism (or colonialism of any kind) are not so proud.

As to the specific grievances that the US colonies had against the King, the US Declaration if Independence states: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." The specific list of those repeated injuries and usurpations are enumerated here in the US Declaration of Independence (signed by representatives of all 13 colonies, not just those in New England):http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charte ... cript.html

edh wrote:

So you're saying it's correct or not?

I have not expressed a personal opinion as to whether the 2nd should be lawfully amended, but I do not believe it should be merely "interpreted" out of existence, ignoring the obvious original intent of the constitution.

edh wrote:

Again, the Weimar republic had all of these things and the Nazis got rid of them. An example of how was burning down the Reichstag, blaming it on a man with learning difficulties, then reconvening government in an Opera House covered in Swastikas and surrounded by SA (not SS, the SS were later) to dissuade those who didn't agree with them from coming in. In addition the Weimar republic had given rise to some very weak, ineffective, unpopular governments so many people were only too happy for it's freedoms to be eroded.

I didn't say one cannot get rid of the US Constitution. In the US, there are two ways that could happen:1) Lawfully amending it2) Adopting a policy that the constitution only says what we "interpret" it to say, regardless of what it actually says, or regardless of the original intent (when documented) of the those who wrote and approved it (aka Founders).

edh wrote:

I would actually say you don't have the luxury of deciding it for yourself. Instead it is brainwashed into you as the American way in which your president is reverred as a king (you even have special crimes specifically applicable to harming your president, very simialr to old fashioned treason laws we have), the US as being the ultimate democracy and the insitutions of your country as being holy. I notice you capitalise the f in 'Founders'. As a serious point is this something you are taught in school? Traditionally this happens when naming those considered device, ie God, kings, queens, when using He, Him, Her to refer to them as well.

You are wrong, we will decide for ourselves. Likewise, I have absolutely no interest in deciding how the UK, or GB, governs itself.

"Special crimes specifically applicable to harming your president"? I think you are confused. In the US, almost all crimes are state crimes, including murder. Historically, there have been some federal crimes that were defined when it involves more than one state, such as transporting kidnap victims across state lines, etc. After JFK was assassinated in 1963, the US realized that the federal government (and the FBI) had absolutely no jurisdiction in the murder investigation, so laws were passed to make it a federal crime to harm federal employees (not just the president). Your comments about founders vs Founders is rather ridiculous. The term Founders applies to specific people that could be named if time and space permitted, and not a general class of people.

I really hope the US will never face a possible dictatorship (actually it will never happen in the near future in our western emisphere), because your "right to bear arms" won't help you, my friend.

You are possibly correct about whether the "right to bear arms" would prevent a future dictatorship in the US. Or maybe you are incorrect. It will be impossible to prove one way or the other, past or present.

But the point is that the US Constitution presently allows citizens the right to bear arms, and the reason for that is to protect citizens from an overbearing government or foreign invasion. This is documented in the discussion about these matters when the Bill of Rights were created and approved. Therefore, if one wants to change the 2nd Amendment, it must be done lawfully via the steps outlined in the Constitution for amendments, and not by ignoring its provisions or interpreting the Bill of Rights away into something other than what it clearly says, or what the original intent clearly was. Nevertheless, there certainly is room for some regulation and banning of certain kinds of weapons (many of which have already been baned), so long as firearms are not completely outlawed.

Along with the US Constitution, comes the burden of accepting its provisions, and only changing it lawfully via amendments, and not merely ignoring its provisions or interpreting it away into something other than what it actually says, and other than what the Founders intended.

Please answer the following question using the "assumption" that there was solid evidence that these changes to the constitution and then a dramatic crackdown on legal and illegal gun ownership "would" save more American lives from being cut short via murder. If so would you agree that however hard it is to change the Constitution, it should be changed.

Quote:

As to the specific grievances that the US colonies had against the King, the US Declaration if Independence states: "The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States." The specific list of those repeated injuries and usurpations are enumerated here in the US Declaration of Independence (signed by representatives of all 13 colonies, not just those in New England):

I believe that you have fallen into the standard but not unsurprising "trap" of where the blame lies. You only have to look at the "American" points of protests in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade+, they were the "Stars and Stripes", and depictions of the "American President" - these are the obvious international faces of America to be burned, and therefore the focus of protests. Exactly the same has happened in the past with the "Union Jack", and the "King/Queen" of the day as the King/Queen is the head of state just like the US President - however you should have noticed that the depictions burnt in recent years were the "Union Jack" and depictions of "Tony bLiar" - times have changed as people now recognises that the Queen did not invade another country bLiar and Bush did. as I have already mentioned this is bad news for America as its head of state is also a politician which does not help at all in situations such as the Iraqi invasion.

Did you know that the first 3 drafts of the 2nd Amendment all had clauses that allowed people to not have to be in the Militia (what they called the National Guard back then) if it was against your religion or moral beliefs?

Which is more important: your right to own any gun you might want; or your right to go to a movie theater and NOT get shot?

I believe that you have fallen into the standard but not unsurprising "trap" of where the blame lies. You only have to look at the "American" points of protests in Iraq and Afghanistan over the last decade+, they were the "Stars and Stripes", and depictions of the "American President" - these are the obvious international faces of America to be burned, and therefore the focus of protests. Exactly the same has happened in the past with the "Union Jack", and the "King/Queen" of the day as the King/Queen is the head of state just like the US President - however you should have noticed that the depictions burnt in recent years were the "Union Jack" and depictions of "Tony bLiar" - times have changed as people now recognises that the Queen did not invade another country bLiar and Bush did. as I have already mentioned this is bad news for America as its head of state is also a politician which does not help at all in situations such as the Iraqi invasion.

What?

I explained the origins of the 2nd Ammendment, and included the thinking of Founders regarding the tyrany of the British King, and of governments in general, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence. I have no idea what that has to do with current protests of Amercian foreign policy.

Which is more important: your right to own any gun you might want; or your right to go to a movie theater and NOT get shot?

What is most important is that the laws, including the Constitution, be respected and followed, and that includes the process of changing the laws when they no longer meet the needs of the people. That does not include unilaterally reinterpreting them to something other than what they say for the sake of convenience. Otherwise, we are no better than a Banana Republic.

Personally (and somewhat off-subject), I would never attend a movie where people feel a need to stand in line to be the first to see it, nor would I ever stand in line to to purchase a cell phone or software to be the first, since that is sure sign of cult activity. When cults are involved, don't be surprised if there are some crazy people in attendance.

Did you know that the first 3 drafts of the 2nd Amendment all had clauses that allowed people to not have to be in the Militia (what they called the National Guard back then) if it was against your religion or moral beliefs?

Maybe that is why one can avoid military service based on religious or moral beliefs. That is in theory covered by the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...).

Please answer the following question using the "assumption" that there was solid evidence that these changes to the constitution and then a dramatic crackdown on legal and illegal gun ownership "would" save more American lives from being cut short via murder. If so would you agree that however hard it is to change the Constitution, it should be changed.

I am not sure what you are proposing. If you mean that certain weapons should be banned, I think that is already permissible under the current 2nd Amendment.

As far as banning all weapons, that is not practical in the US after all this time, because there is no way to retrieve those weapons already dispersed, and would result in only criminals having guns. Also, I am not sure about how guns used for hunting would be handled (not sure how that is done in the UK). Somehow I doubt there are very many wild animals in the UK or most of Europe, as there are in parts of the US, where having a gun for protection is sometimes necessary.

I explained the origins of the 2nd Ammendment, and included the thinking of Founders regarding the tyrany of the British King, and of governments in general, as reflected in the Declaration of Independence.

"edh" has already explained that "the British King" did NOT have the power to be a Tyrant, which you keep arguing against. My point was simply that as head of state the King of the day got the blame, even though the King had nothing at all to do with any Tyranny that happened whilst he was King, as I then went on to say, the head of State and the flag of the nation that is seen as the aggressor is in the picture. Back then it was our flag and our King, now it is our flag and our PM, however the major difference with the US, is that its your flag, your leading politician AND your head of state that get the blame as these are the "figure heads" of the aggressive nations.

Quote:

What is most important is that the laws, including the Constitution, be respected and followed, and that includes the process of changing the laws when they no longer meet the needs of the people. That does not include unilaterally reinterpreting them to something other than what they say for the sake of convenience. Otherwise, we are no better than a Banana Republic.

In that case, I strongly suggest that American politics removes all reference to God form everything that it does, as it very clearly states in the Constitution that there is to be a "separation of Church and State", which there very obviously is NOT, this proves that parts of the Constitution are already being disrespected and ignored.

Quote:

Personally (and somewhat off-subject), I would never attend a movie where people feel a need to stand in line to be the first to see it, nor would I ever stand in line to to purchase a cell phone or software to be the first, since that is sure sign of cult activity. When cults are involved, don't be surprised if there are some crazy people in attendance.

Personally I never attend a cinema where I cant pause the film when I want a piss, or to get a fresh beer

Quote:

Maybe that is why one can avoid military service based on religious or moral beliefs. That is in theory covered by the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...).

An example of where parts of the Constitution can disagree with other parts, the "separation of Church and State" must therefore NOT side with one religion over another, and yet it does.

Quote:

I am not sure what you are proposing. If you mean that certain weapons should be banned, I think that is already permissible under the current 2nd Amendment.

As far as banning all weapons, that is not practical in the US after all this time, because there is no way to retrieve those weapons already dispersed, and would result in only criminals having guns. Also, I am not sure about how guns used for hunting would be handled (not sure how that is done in the UK). Somehow I doubt there are very many wild animals in the UK or most of Europe, as there are in parts of the US, where having a gun for protection is sometimes necessary.

Classic question dodge. Let me rephrase it for you. If you were the President, had both houses full support (and had been democratically elected), would you (as you DO have the power), dramatically cut down on the gun ownership of your people if there was solid proof that the murder rate would halve in 12-months, even though this would not affect people being able to legally kill wildlife.? Yes, or No.?

IClassic question dodge. Let me rephrase it for you. If you were the President, had both houses full support (and had been democratically elected), would you (as you DO have the power), dramatically cut down on the gun ownership of your people if there was solid proof that the murder rate would halve in 12-months, even though this would not affect people being able to legally kill wildlife.? Yes, or No.?

No, would be the short answer to that one. The right to bear arms is in the constitution and government is there to protect* and uphold* the constitution. The constitution was in place before* government, and drafted in such a way that it would never be possible for government to abuse its citizens. That includes disarming them.

Unlike that of a Democracy, where majority rules, and thus can impose themselves onto the minority as well as vote on having rights and freedoms infringed upon, such as more surveillance CCTV cameras and all the rest of it. Ring a bell!?

You try to tack a solution to a problem which has nothing to do with the solution in the first place, just like most nanny state raised "children" do. Your up in arms (no pun), as it were. And being English and all you, seem to feel superior to that of your cousins, the Americans. This is not a dig at you, but it's something I've observed amongst English people. That's all.

"The rights of every Englishman" is still very much alive in the United States, especially in the South. In England? No not so much these days no.

It would be nice to see people backing of with bashing the Americans and as for our English* board members, well, they have their own issues back home in good ol England that they should focus on.

In closure: The United States is not* a Democracy. The United States is a constitutional* republic*.

Last edited by walle on Wed Jul 25, 2012 7:22 am, edited 2 times in total.

During WWI the total US losses were 117000, a tiny fraction of the 17 million total. The total number hides another story: the heaviest day for US losses by a long way was the last day of the war even when the armistice had already been signed and hostilities would cease at 11:00. While they were not alone as some French and British commanders also wanted to have one last cavalry charge, the scale of the commanders stupidity in wasting so many lives was unprecedented. I would in no way link US involvement in WWI to 'saving the world', the US only entered in 1917 after the Germans sent a telegram to Mexico suggesting an attack on the US which was intercepted.

m0002a wrote:

"Special crimes specifically applicable to harming your president"? I think you are confused.

Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. So no, I'm very correct in this and this rule is very close to those we have for treason.

m0002a wrote:

Your comments about founders vs Founders is rather ridiculous. The term Founders applies to specific people that could be named if time and space permitted, and not a general class of people.

So you proved my point. You are taught that they are a reverred group and must therefore have their collective name capitalised to seperate them off from anyone else who founds anything.

m0002a wrote:

Somehow I doubt there are very many wild animals in the UK or most of Europe, as there are in parts of the US, where having a gun for protection is sometimes necessary.

Do you need hollow point bullets to defend yourself from wild animals? Unless it's an elephant, probably not. Don't think you need them to protect your own home short with hollow point bullets either. Why are these still legal? We do have many people in the UK who own shotguns for hunting but the rules are strict in terms of who can use one and where you can use one. You are not for example allowed to hold one within a few hundred metres of a road for good reasons. Handguns, other than very low calibre low powered air pistols are totally illegal. They are no good for hunting so they can only be used for bad purposes. Farmers still frequently use shotguns to kill stray dogs worrying sheep although the most dangerous animal in Britain by a long way is cattle. I wouldn't be too surprised if the statictics in the US would show cattle to be the biggest killer of people too. Wild boar are causing a problem in some areas which has led to them having to be shot in some cases but every time this is done by calling in a gamekeeper, not people taking the law into their own hands.

walle wrote:

as for our English* board members, well, they have their own issues back home in good ol England that they should focus on.

Any issues in particular or just a general point? I would also say I am British, not English

General point. As for the other part of your statement my girlfriend would strongly disagree. She's English* and separates her British citizenship with that of her nationality. She finds it offensive to be called British. It means she doesn't have her nationality recongizned.

In fact: If my girlfriend were to fill out a form in which she was asked to state her nationality she would not be able to do so, reason being there would be no box that said English*. But she would find one that said Scottish and one that said Welsh.

But now we're entering the realms of social engineering I think, and that's not what this thread is all about.

No, would be the short answer to that one. The right to bear arms is in the constitution and government is there to protect* and uphold* the constitution. The constitution was in place before* government, and drafted in such a way that it would never be possible for government to abuse its citizens. That includes disarming them.

Unlike that of a Democracy, where majority rules, and thus can impose themselves onto the minority as well as vote on having rights and freedoms infringed upon, such as more surveillance CCTV cameras and all the rest of it. Ring a bell!?

You try to tack a solution to a problem which has nothing to do with the solution in the first place, just like most nanny state raised "children" do. Your up in arms (no pun), as it were. And being English and all you, seem to feel superior to that of your cousins, the Americans. This is not a dig at you, but it's something I've observed amongst English people. That's all.

"The rights of every Englishman" is still very much alive in the United States, especially in the South. In England? No not so much these days no.

It would be nice to see people backing of with bashing the Americans and as for our English* board members, well, they have their own issues back home in good ol England that they should focus on.

In closure: The United States is not* a Democracy. The United States is a constitutional* republic*.

Well, what can I say to that tirade of bullshit and aggressive posturing....... a lot, but that would be as petty and childish as the above, I wont stoop to such a low level as you have done.

This is way off-topic, but here goes anyway.

Quote:

Any issues in particular or just a general point? I would also say I am British, not English

I would consider myself English first, as I was born here to English parents (and I have not found a single ancestor who was born somewhere other than England), I am British (Great Britain) second as I share this lump of rock with my friendly Neighbours to the north (Scotland) and west (Wales), I am thirdly a member of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (usually referred to as "the UK" for purposes of abbreviation rather than to piss of the people from Northern Ireland), thirdly I am a member of "The Commonwealth", and finally I am a European as they are our nearest non-affiliated neighbours.

Note that various people from around the world will list a different selection of things which the would use to define themselves e.g. their religion or the land mass they are part of may come first, some people from Europe would call themselves European before their own country, others will list themselves as "Muslim" before their country, and huge numbers of immigrants will still call themselves "Pakistani" even though they were born and bred in London and have never stepped foot on Pakistani soil - that last part is something that I envy about America, fortunately the current selection of politicians in the UK are trying to address this issue and are copying the American style of immigration tests and so on.

Quote:

In fact: If my girlfriend were to fill out a form in which she was asked to state her nationality she would not be able to do so, reason being there would be no box that said English*. But she would find one that said Scottish and one that said Welsh.

Whenever I have to fill in some "politically correct" bullshit government form, I always tick the box entitled "Other" and then write below it "English" because that pisses of the people who want to call me "White", "White" and "Black" are not a nationality until someone re-names a whole country "White" or Black", I started doing that when I was about 12 and I wont stop, I put that in the last 2 Census's I completed. "Politically Correct" wankers piss me off.

Quote:

But now we're entering the realms of social engineering I think, and that's not what this thread is all about.

"edh" has already explained that "the British King" did NOT have the power to be a Tyrant, which you keep arguing against. My point was simply that as head of state the King of the day got the blame, even though the King had nothing at all to do with any Tyranny that happened whilst he was King, as I then went on to say, the head of State and the flag of the nation that is seen as the aggressor is in the picture. Back then it was our flag and our King, now it is our flag and our PM, however the major difference with the US, is that its your flag, your leading politician AND your head of state that get the blame as these are the "figure heads" of the aggressive nations.

I was trying to explain to you what the Founders thought about the British King and what motivated them (in part) to include the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights as a protection against the tyranny of governments. Here are their words, and if you have a problem with them, please take that up with the Founders:

The Declaration of Independence, IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

(Excerpts - emphasis mine)

The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Last edited by m0002a on Wed Jul 25, 2012 9:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Classic question dodge. Let me rephrase it for you. If you were the President, had both houses full support (and had been democratically elected), would you (as you DO have the power), dramatically cut down on the gun ownership of your people if there was solid proof that the murder rate would halve in 12-months, even though this would not affect people being able to legally kill wildlife.? Yes, or No.?

Personally, I would not allow ordinary citizens to possess most kinds of assault weapons. I am not sure of the current status of such bans, but I believe that some are already outlawed, and some laws to outlaw them apparently expired, but not 100% sure.

I would not outlaw hand guns, which are needed by some to protect them in their homes, or against wild animals such as bears, mountain lions, etc. I also believe that hand guns are allowed under the 2nd amendment.

As to whether I would have the power to do it, depends on what the Supreme Court rules as permissible under the constitution, taking into account the 2nd amendment. It is not unilaterally up to the President and Congress. The United States is a nation of Laws, not of men.

I would also prosecute criminals such as Eric Holder (Obama's Attorney General) for selling illegal guns to Mexican drug traffickers, knowing that the Mexican government had no intent on following up and arresting those who purchased them.

In that case, I strongly suggest that American politics removes all reference to God form everything that it does, as it very clearly states in the Constitution that there is to be a "separation of Church and State", which there very obviously is NOT, this proves that parts of the Constitution are already being disrespected and ignored.

There is nothing in the US Constitution with the words "separation of church and state." Here is what the 1st Amendment says (in part):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The courts have ruled that references to a Deity do not constitute making any laws regarding the establishment of religion, nor do they prohibit the free exercises of religion. In the US, the Supreme Court has the final say as to the interpretation of the Constitution. Maybe at some later date they will change their minds, but for now the above Supreme Court interpretation is the Law.

Last edited by m0002a on Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:56 am, edited 2 times in total.

Threatening the President of the United States is a class D felony under United States Code Title 18, Section 871. So no, I'm very correct in this and this rule is very close to those we have for treason.

I am not sure your point. Such laws do not elevate the President of the United States to the status of a King. As far as I understand, Kings do not stand for reelection every 4 years, nor are they limited to 10 years total in office.

Such Federal laws as you describe enable arresting people who are likely to harm the President, without having to wait until they actually commit a crime. There are state laws against conspiracy to kill or harm anyone, even before they act on those plans.

So you proved my point. You are taught that they are a reverred group and must therefore have their collective name capitalised to seperate them off from anyone else who founds anything.

Reference to the Founders (or founders if you prefer) has been made to identify very specific persons who crafted the Constitution of the United States or who voted on its adoption. So yes, I meant to separate them from other persons. In order to enforce a law or a contract, in addition to just reading it, it is sometimes useful to understand exactly what the persons who created the law meant based on published discussions of the law when the laws were voted on or enacted (if there is any question as to how to interpret it).

General point. As for the other part of your statement my girlfriend would strongly disagree. She's English* and separates her British citizenship with that of her nationality. She finds it offensive to be called British. It means she doesn't have her nationality recongizned.

She might be English. I am most definitely not. I am British and will correct anyone who asserts that I am English as I have both Welsh blood (my mother is a Welsh speaker) and further back Scottish and Irish ancestory. Things are further complicated by my mother being born in Malta despite all of my Grandparents being British, although this has become easier to explain to the passport office since Malta is now part of the EU. I don't agree with seperatist sentiments from the consituent nations either despite having interest in them from a historical, cultural and linguistic perspective. Likewise I don't agree with regionalism of any form.

As for the words of the US founders mentioning 'tyrant', well of course they would and that was their opinion. Why would anyone expect them to say otherwise? Doesn't make it automatically true though.

An example I would have to give to counteract British 'tyranny' in this period would be the mutiny on HMS Bounty in 1789. The mutineers ended up settling the Pitcairn islands and as military convention of the time dictated, mutinty was punishable by death. When it was however discovered that they had settled peacefully and successfully as they had, they were pardoned. Hardly an act of tyranny.

m0002a wrote:

As far as I understand, Kings do not stand for reelection every 4 years, nor are they limited to 10 years total in office.

Yes, I know that too funnily enough. What happens in the US though is the person that you have elected is then treated as if they are a king. These specific crimes against a person in particular are remarkably close to our treason laws. They also get to be called 'Mr President' for life, that kind of title comes closest to our royalty status, not like honours or nobility that we have, eg. Margaret Thatcher being made a Baroness. I'm sure you also spent lots of time at school learning the names of US presidents, we very rarely get anything in school about Prime Ministers, it's all about Kings and Queens as these are easy names and issues to understand. When a US president dies they are are entitled to a state funeral, again something in line with what major royalty is offered here. We don't offer it to ex-PMs in general, only 5 times has this happened: Wellington for his military career, Palmerston more for his work as foreign secretary, Disraeli who declined the offer in his will, Gladstone for just about everything and Churchill for leadership during WWII. So in many ways, your President traditionally is closer to what we have in our monarchy that what we have in our political system.

I was trying to explain to you what the Founders thought about the British King and what motivated them (in part) to include the 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights as a protection against the tyranny of governments. Here are their words, and if you have a problem with them, please take that up with the Founders:

I was never in any doubt about these facts, just merely repeating that the "Founders" were addressing the "King" because the King was the head of state, not because the King was tyrannical himself.

Quote:

You maintain your high level and I keep mine to the lowest and dumbest denominator.

You said it, although "dumb" means unable to speak, I think that you are confusing the modern meaning for the word "stupid"

Quote:

Personally, I would not allow ordinary citizens to possess most kinds of assault weapons. I am not sure of the current status of such bans, but I believe that some are already outlawed, and some laws to outlaw them apparently expired, but not 100% sure.

That is good to know, although (some of, I assume) those 12 people killed at the Cinema were shot with a legally obtained semi-automatic machine gun.

Quote:

I would not outlaw hand guns, which are needed by some to protect them in their homes, or against wild animals such as bears, mountain lions, etc. I also believe that hand guns are allowed under the 2nd amendment.

What about "machine pistols" such as the Mac-9 and UZI and so on.? Also what would an average hand gun do to a bear, apart from really annoy it.?

Quote:

I would also prosecute criminals such as Eric Holder (Obama's Attorney General) for selling illegal guns to Mexican drug traffickers, knowing that the Mexican government had no intent on following up and arresting those who purchased them.

Wise move, and also make it illegal to do such stupid things in the future by any means including 3rd parties and as-yet unidentified loopholes - this is a classic example of a "legal criminal act".

Quote:

There is nothing in the US Constitution with the words "separation of church and state." Here is what the 1st Amendment says (in part):

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Sorry, I must have confused a very popular often quoted line that I always believed to be written into American law.

She might be English. I am most definitely not. I am British and will correct anyone who asserts that I am English as I have both Welsh blood (my mother is a Welsh speaker) and further back Scottish and Irish ancestory. Things are further complicated by my mother being born in Malta despite all of my Grandparents being British, although this has become easier to explain to the passport office since Malta is now part of the EU. I don't agree with seperatist sentiments from the consituent nations either despite having interest in them from a historical, cultural and linguistic perspective. Likewise I don't agree with regionalism of any form.

I wont argue with your description of your own nationality - who can.? Also it should not be discouraged by political correctness - after all, there are loads of people I know who have Welsh, Scottish and Irish (both sides of the border) ancestry.

Quote:

Yes, I know that too funnily enough. What happens in the US though is the person that you have elected is then treated as if they are a king. These specific crimes against a person in particular are remarkably close to our treason laws. They also get to be called 'Mr President' for life, that kind of title comes closest to our royalty status, not like honours or nobility that we have, eg. Margaret Thatcher being made a Baroness. I'm sure you also spent lots of time at school learning the names of US presidents, we very rarely get anything in school about Prime Ministers, it's all about Kings and Queens as these are easy names and issues to understand. When a US president dies they are are entitled to a state funeral, again something in line with what major royalty is offered here. We don't offer it to ex-PMs in general, only 5 times has this happened: Wellington for his military career, Palmerston more for his work as foreign secretary, Disraeli who declined the offer in his will, Gladstone for just about everything and Churchill for leadership during WWII. So in many ways, your President traditionally is closer to what we have in our monarchy that what we have in our political system.

That is pretty much the way I, and anyone else I have ever spoken to views the situation, although I have always considered this due to the fact that the President is above any beyond anyone else in the whole country. The President is not just a politician with ties to a major political party, but also Head of State, has veto powers, and is in the media spotlight constantly, so way above and beyond all of the powers that our Monarch has, and indeed way more power than our leading political figure has (Prime Minister). This makes the American President something like a combination of King and PM, but gets so many more lifetime benefits than other Presidents around the world seem to get.

What happens in the US though is the person that you have elected is then treated as if they are a king. These specific crimes against a person in particular are remarkably close to our treason laws. They also get to be called 'Mr President' for life, that kind of title comes closest to our royalty status, not like honours or nobility that we have, eg. Margaret Thatcher being made a Baroness. I'm sure you also spent lots of time at school learning the names of US presidents, we very rarely get anything in school about Prime Ministers, it's all about Kings and Queens as these are easy names and issues to understand. When a US president dies they are are entitled to a state funeral, again something in line with what major royalty is offered here. We don't offer it to ex-PMs in general, only 5 times has this happened: Wellington for his military career, Palmerston more for his work as foreign secretary, Disraeli who declined the offer in his will, Gladstone for just about everything and Churchill for leadership during WWII. So in many ways, your President traditionally is closer to what we have in our monarchy that what we have in our political system.

1. Any official in the US (state or federal level) is usually entitled to be called by the highest public office they ever held, even if they no longer hold that office. There is no law about this, it is just custom. So for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger should be addressed as "Governor" even though he is no longer governor of California. This has nothing to do with royalty and is not limited to the President. It even applies to dog catchers, if that is a public office in a particular locality.

2. I already mentioned that conspiracy to harm or kill anyone is a State crime in the US, even if the act is not carried out. For a President, it is a Federal crime, for obviously reasons. Nothing to do with royalty.

3. You are wrong about State funerals in the US. Persons other than the President (or former president) are entitled to a state funeral if specially designated by the President of the United States. This has happened on multiple occaisions. In addition, other persons may "lay in state" (without a state funeral). Any former member of the military, and certain former Federal employees, may be buried at Arlingtion National Cemetery.

In general, you seem to making superficial observations that appear to be somewhat similar in both the US and UK, and then trying to conclude that the US President is a monarch. The attempt to do that is a logical fallacy.

1. Any official in the US (state or federal level) is usually entitled to be called by the highest public office they ever held, even if they no longer hold that office. There is no law about this, it is just custom. So for example, Arnold Schwarzenegger should be addressed as "Governor" even though he is no longer governor of California. This has nothing to do with royalty and is not limited to the President. It even applies to dog catchers, if that is a public office in a particular locality.

Thanks m0002a, that's very interesting to know, and reminds me that it was only a few years ago that I even knew that "ex-Presidents" are still called "President", this actually ended up as a minor news story in the UK when ex-Prime Minister Tony bLiar met either Bush or Obama and was still referred to as "Prime Minister". Customs across the world are always very interesting especially as they are often archaic and literally "belong" in a different era but are still continued.

That is pretty much the way I, and anyone else I have ever spoken to views the situation, although I have always considered this due to the fact that the President is above any beyond anyone else in the whole country. The President is not just a politician with ties to a major political party, but also Head of State, has veto powers, and is in the media spotlight constantly, so way above and beyond all of the powers that our Monarch has, and indeed way more power than our leading political figure has (Prime Minister). This makes the American President something like a combination of King and PM, but gets so many more lifetime benefits than other Presidents around the world seem to get.

1. Head of State - what does that mean? Obviously the US President is head of state. Who else, in the absence of a monarch, would be head of state in the US? Not exactly sure what the benefits of "head of state" are.

2. Veto Powers - The President can veto legislation passed by Congress, but the veto can be overridden by a a two-thirds majority of both houses of Congress. The US President cannot initiate legislation, the can only sign or veto legislation passed by Congress. The US Supreme Court has the right to decide if any legislation signed into law is constitutional or not, and can overrule the President in that regard.

3. Media Spotlight - You can't be serious. Tiger Woods and Lebron James get a lot more media attention. Who the f--K cares?

4. Lifetime benefits - The US President only earns a salary of $400,000 per year, which puts the President about at the 1% level of income in the US. In other words, if there are 200,000,000 million people employed in the US, then there are 2 million people in the US who make more money than the US President. Plus, their dry cleaning bills are outrageous. Former presidents do get some lifetime benefits (mostly security), but not all that much compared to any other corporate executive.

5. Term of Office - A king/queen obtains office via heredity reasons, and the US President is elected. A king/queen has a lifetime office, whereas a President must be elected every 4 years and cannot server more than 10 years in office.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum